Well something worked out at '69, despite it being a total s#*tshow as well. I like to think people were more respectful and helpful to one another. It seemed that way to me. SHOW YOUR T$$TS?? BREAK STUFF?? Seriously, you don't see a difference between how attendees conducted themselves in '69 compared to '99? Night and Day.
While I agree with you that the vibe was drastically different, there were some similarities. Just like in 1999, ‘fans’ tore down the festival wall in 1969. And here’s some of the trash the ‘69 event left behind:
So I have to wonder: what was the profit margin on Woodstock '99? For everything that happened, how much did Scher, Lang, Ossie Kilkenny, etc. make? Has that ever been disclosed? Some loose figures suggest a $60 million take on ticket sales alone ($150 per ticket, with 300,00 - 400,000 attending), with a $38 million price tag to produce the thing.
Some did stay behind to clean up though (and made a giant peace sign with the trash!), but I hear what you're saying. I was barely 2 at the time, but if I had a choice on which festival to attend, I'm thinking '69 would have been more of a positive life event.
Well, the ‘69 show didn’t present the same circumstances as ‘99 show. Had similar circumstances arose, the ‘69 crowd probably would have acted much the same as the ‘99 crowd. You suggested that society has changed, but the society that produced Woodstock ‘69 also produced the ‘69 Altamonte Speedway festival that was plagued with violence/death (irrespective of The Hell’s Angels attendance). And for a group of supposed ecologically conscious people, the ‘69 Woodstock crowd trashed the entire area, which greatly upset the people who owned the property. I don’t see a night and day difference.
Thing's like this always amuse me. The collective media have for as long as I have been alive been so quick to objectify women, treat them as nothing more than pretty things for men to look at. Yet here they are trying to sidestep their responsibility for the part they played in the media culture of the late 90's. Culture that promoted gangster rap, grunge, rap metal ect and as you say that "show me your tits" thinking. I also agree that the audience is still there. These days we see with the cancel culture twitterati. A small vocal majority who act as leaders or front runners for an extremely negative part of 2022. Yet the media promote their often nasty ideas and it has become a big part of the current culture. As a result others pile on. The same type of people from the late 90's who acted like tools at Woodstock became the trolls of 2002 and influenced the current crop of trolls. We can expect the media to denounce these people in the future once the tide turns.
A bunch of high-testosterone bands, not enough infrastructure, a super sh**ty physical venue, and "get your freak on in overcrowded conditions" as a selling point. I mean, who could possibly have imagined it wouldn't be a great time for all?
No, it was indeed a completely different atmosphere in 1969 Woodstock. The 1999 Woodstock was plagued by aggression: in the bands, and in the audience. The 1969 Woodstock was not. The idea then was community, and getting along, for the most part. Altamont was an entirely different scenario: Poor planning, the fact that the festival site had moved three times in two weeks, Mick Jagger’s blunder in announcing it too soon, and having the Hells Angels hired as “Security“. The crowd didn’t go there to be aggressive, the crowd’s intent was to be peaceful and enjoy the show. In 1999, the intent was to be a lot more aggressive. Things has certainly changed. Regardless of what you say. I understand that a lot of people have this desire to tear down the idea of 1969 audiences being more respectable to each other. I don’t know why that is.
I haven’t watched either documentary yet (plan to watch the Netflix one since I don’t subscribe to HBO) but did either of them mention the Dave Mathew’s Band concert riots in Hartford, CT? They were just a few weeks after Woodstock ‘99 (and a year ago today!). I was a senior in high school at the time and remember wondering what the hell was going on.
Maybe because it was a “local” news event it might not have gotten widespread press so it’s just not as well known as Woodstock ‘99. I don’t know, but I’ve always linked these two events.
I, for one, would love to read a John Scher autobiography someday. I can only assume that he will eventually pen such a tome.
I have not watched it yet, so I am hesitant to comment. But your description here- and I do not doubt its accuracy- sounds like very similar to what was described in this book: Among the Thugs - Wikipedia A fascinating read.
I remember seeing segments of ‘99 at the time on MuchMusic and it looked scary. I haven’t seen any of the current Doc, nor will I. A friend who has been watching it told me about the Fatboy Slim set and this led me to reading some more about it online. Out-rageous. In hindsight, every festival ever help ends up having a “dark side”. This one is probably the darkest of them all.
I agree, the “vibe” was different between the ‘69 and ‘99 events. I was referring to something specific that another person stated, that society has changed greatly. I have no desire to “tear down” ‘69 Woodstock — as I stated previously, my mom, dad, uncle, their friends and I were there (I was only 5 months old). If anything I would tend to be nostalgic about Woodstock ’69. However, I’m not impressed with the mythology surrounding the ‘69 show. The idea that we were socially different in ‘69 is silly. Altamonte was put together by the same society (and many of the same people) as Woodstock. One was something of a disaster, one wasn’t. Any group of people can walk around flashing the peace sign and claiming universal love, but no one really put those concepts into action, nor were minorities and women shown any authentic respect or equality. My parents and all their friends spoke the lingo of the 60’s and 70’s, but I never saw anyone put those values into practice. You say the ‘99 Woodstock was intended to be aggressive, but I don’t know that to be true. I will have to watch the documentary. No doubt Woodstock became a name-brand, and cynicism was everywhere for the ‘99 show — it was a blatant cash-cow. That said, the idea that ‘69 Woodstock was closer to a utopian social experience than ‘99 , is simply not true. Irrespective of how much people romanticize the 60’s, there has not been a great change in society.
One big difference between the cultural setting of Woodstock 1969 and 1999 - Nobody in 1999 was being drafted against their will and sent off to war. None of those people in 1999 had to worry about the draft in the middle of a war with casualty figures that we could not comprehend happening now. So yeah, there was anger on the streets among young Americans in 1969, for reasons unfathomable to the mob at Woodstock 99.
When the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) broke-out, I was 22 or 23. I was genuinely concerned that there would be a draft. My fears were completely unfounded, as it turned out. I respect and appreciate the all-volunteer American Military, but I am not soldier material.
Ok, how about say, '49 to'69'? How about '99 to now? The idea that society stays the same in a 30 year span is silly.
I never said society stays the same. You suggested that there was a great change for the worse. And that simply isn’t true. History/society is essentially a zero-sum game. At any given era, there are as many losses as there are gains. Anyone can highlight specific aspects of an era, and paint that era as better, worse, etc.
I don't know if I said "a great change for the worse". I said comparing footage of both events speaks volumes about our society. How we have, and haven't, evolved. I thought it was interesting that in the many Woodstock skinny dipping clips, there isn't a group of horned-up idiots with "show your titz" signs circling the females like vultures. And way less anger. Conditions sucked in '69 too but nobody started smashing and destroying. I don't know, maybe I'm blind or something, and you know better, or maybe you had "hippie" parents and grew up resenting that whole scene. I firmly believe there were huge differences in the way attendees at both shows conducted themselves, and it was better then. I would have much rather experienced whatever happened in '69. In your eyes, I'm naive. And I'm ok with that. Peace Man
As mentioned above, fans tore down the fence in ‘69 as they thought it should be a free show. Not very peace and love. Likewise, if it wasn’t for volunteers like the Hog Farm providing free meals I wonder if the crowd would have become unruly. Andy Zax has some interesting thoughts here: Yet it gained the reputation of being a joyous, blissful experience, a myth that Andy Zax, who produced the upcoming, 38-disc “Woodstock — Back to the Garden: The Definitive 50th Anniversary Archive,” called a “fairy tale.” That misconception largely comes from Wadleigh’s 1970 documentary, which permanently embedded an idealized version of Woodstock in the cultural consciousness and possibly led to decades’ worth of attempts to re-create it. “Everything we consider to be a real, canonical Woodstock moment … is from the film,” Zax said. “It’s a very constructed version of Woodstock.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...assault-maybe-woodstock-was-always-nightmare/
I don’t think you’re naive, we just have a difference of interpretation/opinion. And yes, my parents were Hippies. I don’t resent the hippie-era, or the ideas/ideals. However, as the 70’s progressed, and the fashion changed, so did my parent’s much-espoused values — thus the movement struck me as extremely superficial. By the time the 80’s hit, my dad’s hatred for women surfaced, as did his abuse of women, his alcoholism and cocaine use, and eventual jail-time for non-payment of child support. For all my mom’s sloganeering about women’s equality and empowerment, she re-married in the 80’s the most violent, dishonest, least faithful, control freak I’ve ever known. Obviously my parents don’t represent everyone . . . but I did wonder how sincere the Peace & Love movement was.
